The Civic Engagement and Social Capital of the Black Panther Party and its Eventual Downfall

Siraaj Al-Din Singh

National Service and American Democracy

CPP112

12 May 2020
 Singh 2
In 1966, two students by the names of Bobby Seale and Huey Newton founded the Black

Panther Party for Self-Defense, now more widely known as the Black Panther Party (Peniel 219).

As a result of World War II, thousands of African Americans migrated to the north and west

parts of America. After finding that the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s was not adequate in

challenging the economically and socially advantageous positions of white people in these new

areas, Seale and Newton set out to change the living conditions of African Americans in cities

like Oakland (Murch 5). They thought that though the Civil Rights Movement succeeded in

winning back the constitutional rights of African Americans, the movement failed in addressing

indirect injustices, such as the economic hierarchy in which whites were still mostly dominant. In

areas such as Oakland, the black population was subjected to poor living conditions through sub-

par housing and a high percentage of unemployment. Specifically, the Black Panther Party

looked to change the fact that all of the housing, which was overcrowded and neglected, was

owned by white people (Bloom and Martin 11). As such, they sought out a more aggressive and

militant style of social and political engagement to stop racism from keeping the black

population in poverty and unemployment (Bloom and Martin 30-36). Seale and Newton wanted

to transform the negative outlook on African Americans. However, their methods of mobilizing

aggressively through the use of firearms around the African American identity and as a reaction

to police brutality in their social and political engagement led to the eventual downfall of the

organization.

The initial purpose and mobilisation of the movement was to end police brutality and

racism, and Newton used firearms and gun rights to challenge the power of the police. Seale and

Newton saw their opportunity to create change in late 1966, when sixteen year old Matthew

Johnson was shot to death by a police officer even though he was unarmed. The rising tension of
 Singh 3
the African American community gave Newton the vision that he would be able to make a

difference through the built up anger and frustration. After thoroughly studying gun laws,

Newton took action by arming and following police officers to record, report, or stop incidents of

police brutality (Bloom and Martin 30-39). By taking advantage of the open carry laws at the

time, the organization was able to call for action by “policing the police” (Bloom and Martin 45).

This was not without criticism, however. Some saw this form of protest as hyper-aggressive, but

they argued their goal was to socially engage the African American community on their gun

rights and the laws surrounding firearms and weapons (Austin 10-22). Perceptions of this

aggression also came from their demeaning chants, often referring to white authority as “pigs”

(Farber 207). These actions spread interest and engagement for the Black Panther Party, and as

such, they were able to share an identity and mobilize in other areas, preventing additional

incidents of police brutality by guarding rallies through the open carry of firearms. However, this

was short-lived. Their methods of protest and militant organization garnered a negative view

from the F.B.I., foreshadowing the Black Panther Party’s eventual downfall.

The Black Panther Party was also able to gain support from political and civic rights

organizations worldwide, expanding their social capital. Their methods of protest caused the

Federal Bureau of Investigation to label the Black Panther Party as a “black nationalist hate

[group]” (“A Huey P. Newton Story”). Because the group mobilized and identified under the

African American identity and black nationalism and pushed for their rights through more

militant methods, the F.B.I. now felt that they were “the greatest threat to the internal security of

the country” (“A Huey P. Newton Story”). The F.B.I. hoped to weaken the structure and social

influence of the party, by provoking conflict between the Black Panthers and other organizations

and gangs sparked from anonymous letters threatening the lives of important members. This
 Singh 4
resulted in the arrest of Newton, the killing of fellow members Fred Hampton and Mark Clark by

the F.B.I., and the murder of Los Angeles branch leader Bunchy Carter (Gregory). The

organization continued to garner attention, even with the F.B.I hindering the development of

their movement and mobilization. Some of the remaining Panther members travelled to other

countries such as North Vietnam, North Korea, China, and Algeria where they were met with

support for their movement from other prominent figures leading organizations (Bloom and

Martin 318-321). This opportunity allowed the Panthers to expand their social capital globally,

as they connected with other movements, now uniting under the banner of defeating “American

Imperialism” (Bloom and Martin 3). Even though they had a broader identity to connect with

supporters worldwide, some members did not agree with this direction, which ultimately resulted

in a fallout for the Black Panther Party.

Thus, this international involvement grew increasingly difficult to organize, manage, and

mobilize, since many members had developed new ideas and visions for the direction of the

organization. While some wanted to focus on social services, others wanted to continue the

hyper-aggressive battle with the police and government. Some members also felt that the

organization needed to take a more political approach (Cox 171-176). In the end, the

organization eventually split, and fell into a spiral downfall with remnants of the party

sometimes emerging as street gangs (Heffernan). The continued involvement in issues with law

enforcement through their militant approach to protest and the disagreement on core principles

brought the organization down.

 Singh 5
Works Cited

“A Huey P. Newton Story - Actions - COINTELPRO.” PBS, Public Broadcasting Service, 2002,

www.pbs.org/hueypnewton/actions/actions_cointelpro.html.

Austin, Curtis J. Up Against the Wall: Violence in the Making and Unmaking of the Black

Panther Party. University of Arkansas Press, 2006, pp. 10-22.

Bloom, Joshua, and Waldo E. Martin. Black against Empire: the History and Politics of the

Black Panther Party. University of California Press, 2016, pp. 3-321.

Cox, Donald. “The Split in the Party.” New Political Science, vol. 21, no. 2, 1999, pp. 171–176.,

doi:10.1080/07393149908429861.

Farber, David R. The Age of Great Dreams: America in the 1960s. Hill and Wang, 2000, p.207.

Gregory, Ted. “The Black Panther Raid and the Death of Fred Hampton.” Chicagotribune.com,

14 May 2019, www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/chi-chicagodays-pantherraid-story-

story.html.

Heffernan, Virginia. “The Gangs of Los Angeles: Roots, Branches and Bloods.” The New York

Times, The New York Times, 6 Feb. 2007,

www.nytimes.com/2007/02/06/arts/television/06heff.html.

Murch, Donna Jean. Living for the City: Migration, Education, and the Rise of the Black

Panther Party in Oakland, California. The University of North Carolina Press, 2010, p.

5.

Peniel, Joseph. Waiting Til’ the Midnight Hour: A Narrative History of Black Power in America.

Henry Holt, 2006, p. 219.